In life, there’s nothing that is good that cannot be overdone.

A memorable example of this, for me, is the image of the stump at the end of Shel Silverstein’s story The Giving Tree. While the book ends with the words “and the tree was happy,” having given everything to the child who now sat atop it as an old man, there’s something about the unbounded, unrequited generosity of the tree that just felt wrong.

Similarly, psychological safety – that is, the willingness of members of a team to express their ideas, questions, or concerns freely without fear of judgment – can also have negative effects in certain circumstances. Researchers Deng et al. propose that, in addition to psychological safety’s positive effect on team performance by reducing fear of failure, it can also have a negative effect by reducing work motivation. Imagine a workplace where there was very little judgment from peers or managers on a person’s contributions; how do you think that would affect employee motivation and therefore task performance?

How then do we gain the benefits of psychological safety without stumbling into its pitfalls?

1. Establish accountability. As with most things in life, the key to fulfillment and success is to strike the right balance. But what are we balancing against psychological safety? The answer: accountability. When practiced in a healthy way, psychological safety eliminates employee fear of being judged for identifying problems or disagreeing with consensus, but it does not remove the natural consequences that should flow from employees failing to meet their goals.

2. Pulse check team predisposition. If a team is predisposed to fear failure, which is more common in collectivist cultures or organizations with high power distance (i.e. where there are significant differences in presumed authority across the organizational hierarchy), then emphasizing psychological safety will likely lead to positive outcomes. If a team is predisposed to disengagement, which is more common in individualistic cultures or organizations with low power distance, then emphasizing accountability will be better. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Push in the opposite direction of where the team is already predisposed.

3. Consider interdependence. A research study conducted amongst public school teachers showed a negative relationship between psychological safety and performance. The best performing schools were those that had a combination of low psychological safety and high accountability. The researchers, Higgins et al., hypothesized that the fact that public school teachers mostly work alone contributed to this negative effect. Other studies that have shown positive effects (like Google’s Project Aristotle) involve contexts where team members work together closely. The more team members are or believe they are interdependent, the more likely psychological safety will produce positive effects.

4. Inspect and direct the team’s energy. Psychological safety enables team members to more freely speak and act. But the question is this: what are they feeling freer to speak and act about? Are they channeling this feeling of safety to simply vent frustration or are they channeling it to solve the team’s most important problems? Psychological safety creates openness, but this openness must be directed.

5. Boost motivation. If the way psychological safety results in negative outcomes is through reducing employee motivation, then consider interventions that counteract those effects by boosting motivation. Examples of factors that improve employee motivation include having a sense of purpose, having autonomy and self-efficacy, open and regular communication with leaders, among others.

Research that backs the benefits of psychological safety in teams is numerous and compelling, but we must realize that practice is necessarily more nuanced than can be represented in research. Psychological safety is good, but as with other good things, it must be practiced in the right way, in the right place, and at the right time.

When done well, psychological safety should not reduce employee accountability. It should be directed toward the achievement of the organization or team’s most important pursuits. It will be coupled with other leadership and organizational traits that naturally boost employee morale such as having clear and compelling goals.

As you think about your team or organization, how would you rate your level of psychological safety? Too much, too little, or just right?

Photo Credit: Leslie Cross on Unsplash.

References

Deng, H., Leung, K., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2019). Slacking off in comfort: A dual-pathway model for psychological safety climate. Journal of management, 45(3), 1114-1144.

Eldor, L., Hodor, M., & Cappelli, P. (2023). The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 177, 104255.

Higgins, M. C., Dobrow, S. R., Weiner, J. M., & Liu, H. (2022). When is psychological safety helpful in organizations? A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(1), 77-102.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. Harper & Row.

Zhang, Y., & Wan, M. (2021). The double-edged sword effect of psychological safety climate: A theoretical framework. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 27(5/6), 377-390.